dragonagefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Trevelyan Family
Notability (How did I know who would be nominating these articles for deletion before they were even created...) The family's involvement in the series can not be adequately portrayed on a character article, because there is no single character article. The Inquisitor article can no more detail this family, than the Warden article detailed the Cousland or Mahariel families. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 09:36, August 22, 2014 (UTC) I feel that while we learned a great deal about them from those bits of information on the main site the other day, having only one named person who only dubiously belongs to the family doesn't seem to satisfy the notability guidelines at the moment. I'm sure that once the game is launched we'll have more information about them and more named members but at the moment it doesn't really seem that it's deserving of its own article at the moment. Of course we could just leave the article for now and then add to it later instead of resurrecting this page months from now (which does seem a tad tedious). Hey, I'm new, don't kill me, just thought I'd throw my old two cents in here. Or twenty... --Peranakan (talk) 11:45, August 22, 2014 (UTC) :The same is true with many of the new articles created for Inquisition. The guidelines with regards to families specify that it must have at least three characters or that their involvement in the series not be adequately portrayed on a character article. The latter here is the case. As you mention, the Inquisitor's belonging to this series is optional (I wouldn't use the word dubious), thus is not the place for documenting the family. The subsection on backgrounds in the Inquisitor article already overly long. :Since BioWare have stated that race/class/background will form a major part of the entire game, unlike DAO where it was just the Origin story ("Your race choices play a part throughout the entire story, unlike origins when it was just the beginning"), it is almost certain that such things will be expanded upon. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 16:21, August 22, 2014 (UTC) ::Sorry Alexsau, nothing personal I assure you. For the record I think the Inquisitior article could easily cover all the information on the origins we have now. The summary for the human inquisitor covers the whole thing quite well and fairly concisely. (and covers all the information we have here so I must question what unique information the family article adds.) - 19:52, August 22, 2014 (UTC) As far as I can tell, this article does meet the family notability guidelines. The Inquisitor article is brief enough right now to fit this info, but it's going to get much larger, and I think it would be appropriate to split out the origins, or whatever they're calling it, like we did for Dragon Age: Origins. --Kelcat (talk) 05:17, August 23, 2014 (UTC) Agreed with the points to keep this article. -- 07:45, August 23, 2014 (UTC) Actually having had a bit more time to think about it, I can see Alexsau's point. I'm changing my mind and voting in favour of keeping the article. This is provided of course that further information on the family, clan etc etc is forthcoming in Inquisition and is enough to warrant a whole article. Having said that though, we could have avoided this discussion entirely by just creating this article later when we had enough information for the family and the clan that putting it on the Inquisitior article would obviously be completely unfeasible. So I guess its more the timing of the article's creation I object to as much as anything. - 09:29, August 23, 2014 (UTC) I agree to keep the article as well, based on the points Kelcat raised. Xsari (talk) 11:40, August 23, 2014 (GMT) Never thought it was personal HD3! As article creator my vote is also against. Since it looks like we've reached consensus, with even the nominator agreeing to keeping the article, I'm going to go ahead and remove the deletion tag. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 18:43, August 23, 2014 (UTC) I agree let's keep it. It would serve no purpose to delete an artical that's just going to be expanded upon later. (Darion Cousland (talk) 12:52, August 28, 2014 (UTC))